235

Chapter 17 Athletics

Mention Ann Arbor, and the first image that prob- ably comes to mind is a crisp, brilliant weekend in the fall: walking across campus through the falling leaves to Michigan Stadium; gathering at tailgate parties be- fore the big game; the excitement of walking into that magnificent stadium–“the Big House”–with 110,000 fans thrilling to the Michigan Marching Band as they step onto the field playing “Hail to the Victors.” Intercollegiate athletics provide some of the very special moments in college life: The excitement of a traditional football rivalry such as Michigan vs. Ohio State; or, perhaps, special events such as a Rose Bowl or a NCAA Final Four. Intercollegiate athletics programs at Michigan are not only an important tradition at the Michigan takes the field! University, but they also attract as much public visibil- ity as any other University activity. of high integrity. It also stems from the increasingly They are also a critical part of a university presi- celebrity character of college sports: successful and dent’s portfolio of responsibilities. As any leader of a quotable coaches such as Bo Schembechler, flamboyant NCAA Division I-A institution will tell you, a president players such as the Fab Five, the extraordinary scale of ignores intercollegiate athletics only at great peril--both Michigan athletics, with a football stadium averaging institutional and personal. There is an old saying in 112,000 spectators a game. presidential circles that the university might be viewed However the popularity of Michigan athletics is a as a very fragile academic entity, delicately balanced two-edged sword. While it certainly creates great vis- between the medical center at one end of the campus ibility for the University–after each Rose Bowl or Final and the athletic department at the other. The former can Four appearance, the number of applications for ad- sink it financially–the latter can sink it through public mission surges–it also has a very serious potential for gaffs. instability. Every college athletic department, no mat- Although it is perhaps understandable that a large, ter how committed and vigilant its leadership, never- successful athletic program such as Michigan would theless can depend on an occasional misstep. After all, dominate the local media, it also has more far-reaching most college student-athletes are still in their teens; the visibility. Michigan receives far more ink in the national great popularity of college sports attracts all hangers- media–the New York Times or the Washington Post or on to key programs, some well-intentioned, some not; even the Wall Street Journal–for its activities on the field there is intense pressure from the sports media; and the that it ever did for its classroom or laboratory contribu- NCAA rulebook is larger and more complex than the tions. This media exposure is due, in part, to the Uni- United States Tax Code. versity’s long tradition of successful athletics programs Perhaps far more serious is the extraordinary emo- 236

tional attachment that ordinarily rational people can Michigan athletics make enjoyable reading, my pur- develop toward college sports–at least toward suc- pose is better served by beginning somewhat later, in cessful programs. We have all seen how fans behave at the mid-1960s, when Michigan athletics, and college sporting events–not simply cheering the favored team sports more generally, began their mad dash toward on, but taunting the opposition, berating officials, and the cliff of commercialization. During today’s heady even occasionally booing their own players and coach- times of national championships and lucrative televi- es. And for many, this emotional involvement extends sion and licensing contracts, Michigan fans sometimes far beyond simply the moment of athletic competition. forget that the University’s athletics programs have not After a series of disappointing seasons, boosters and always been so dominant. During the 1960s, the Michi- alumni are not only likely to call for the firing of the gan football program had fallen on hard times, with coach, but for the athletic director and the president as typical stadium attendance averaging 60,000 to 70,000 well. Why not get rid of the whole @#$%& bunch?! And per game (about two-thirds the capacity of Michigan their one-dimensional view of the university through Stadium). Michigan State University, just up the road, their sports binoculars is not only conveyed to other drew most of the attention with its powerful football fans, but to legislators and regents as well--folks who teams—actually, this was part of its president’s strategy have the power and sometimes the inclination to do re- to transform Michigan Agricultural College into a ma- ally serious damage! jor university. Furthermore, student interest on activist Corner any university president in a candid mo- campuses such as Michigan’s had shifted during the ment, and he or she will admit that many of the prob- 1960s from college athletics to political activism, with lems they have with the various internal and external great causes such as racial discrimination and an un- constituencies of the university stem from athletics. popular war in Vietnam to protest. Whether it is an appropriate concern about program in- There were, nevertheless, a few bright spots in Mich- tegrity, or a booster-driven pressure for team success, or igan’s athletic fortunes. Michigan’s basketball team had media pressure, or over-involvement by trustees, presi- enjoyed considerable success in the mid-1960s, with dents are frequently placed in harm’s way by athletics. Cazzie Russell leading the team to the NCAA cham- As a result, whether they like it or not, most presidents pionship game, only to lose to an upstart UCLA team learn quickly that they must become both knowledge- (which would then dominate the sport for the next de- able and actively involved in their athletics programs. cade). Largely as a consequence of this success, the Uni- As Peter Flawn, former president of the University of versity used student-fee-financed bonds to build a new Texas, put it in his wonderful “how-to” book on univer- basketball arena, Crisler Center, named after former sity leadership, “If you don’t like or understand college football coach and athletic director Fritz Crisler. Actual- football, learn how to fake it”. ly, this facility was also known to many as simply “the house that Cazzie built.” 1960s Some of Michigan’s other athletics programs were also successful. The ice hockey team won the national Far more histories have been written about Michi- championship in 1964. Swimming began what was to gan athletics than have been written about the Univer- become a three-decade long domination of the Big Ten sity itself. The names of Michigan’s sports heroes—Yost, Conference. There were considerable accomplishments Crisler, Harmon—are better known than any members in other sports such as wrestling, track, and gymnas- of Michigan’s distinguished faculty or its presidents. tics. But, at Michigan, football was king, and when the Tellingly, most of these histories have been written football fortunes were down, students and fans were by sportswriters, former athletic directors, coaches, or apathetic about Michigan athletics. fans. Hence it seems both appropriate and amusing to This began to change in the late 1960s. Although provide a brief historical corrective from the perspec- many attribute Michigan’s turnaround to a new ath- tive of a long time faculty member (JD). letic director, Don Canham, reputed to be the shrewd Although the legends of the good old days of marketing genius who transformed Michigan athletics 237

Don Canham, defining the AD Czar Coach Bo Schembechler into a commercial juggernaut, most of us on the fac- market Michigan football in sophisticated ways. For ulty saw the situation somewhat different. Following instance, he arranged for planes to pull banners ad- the advice of the former football coach Bump Elliot, vertising Michigan football over Detroit Tiger Stadium Canham recruited a talented young football coach, Bo during the 1968 World Series. He launched the practice Schembechler, who revitalized the Michigan program of mass-mailed advertising and catalogs of souvenir in his first year, beating Ohio State and going to the items. Michigan athletics began to function more as a Rose Bowl. The sports scene in southeastern Michi- business, complete with marketing, advertising, and gan strongly supports winners, and within a couple of promotion, along with the development of new com- years, Michigan Stadium began to sell out on a regular mercial activities. To many, Canham became the stereo- basis. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist—or a Michigan type of the athletic director CEO-czar who would drive faculty member, for that matter—to realize that if one college sports into a commercial entertainment indus- can regularly fill the largest football stadium in the try. country with paying customers, prosperity and success soon follow. And indeed it did, since year after year 1970s-1980s Michigan fielded nationally ranked football teams. The annual matchup between Michigan and Ohio During the 1970s and 1980s, for all intents and pur- State, often personified as a battle between Bo Schem- poses, Michigan athletics was a one-sport program. bechler and Woody Hayes, soon grew to mythical pro- Football ruled the roost, and other sports were clearly portions. Fans experienced some initial frustration be- secondary priorities. Taking a more objective look at cause of a Big Ten Conference rule, which allowed only this era, one cannot help but note that while several of the conference champion to compete in a bowl game, the men’s programs competed effectively within the Big the Rose Bowl. However the quality of the Michigan Ten Conference, none were regarded as national lead- and Ohio State teams during the early 1970s soon ers. In fact, Michigan went twenty-five years without a forced the Big Ten to relax this rule, and Michigan be- national championship in any sport, from 1964 when Al gan to add a bowl game to its schedule every year. Renfrew’s hockey team won the national championship To be sure, Canham was inventive. He began to until 1989 when Steve Fisher’s basketball team won the 238

Final Four. Even the football team, generally nationally tion in its modern history, with a major scandal in the ranked during the season, always fell short by season’s baseball program involving slush funds, illegal pay- end, either losing to Ohio State in the season finale or in ments to players, and recruiting violations. its annual bowl appearance. Although Michigan had long had a reputation for While Michigan’s leadership in commercializing successful programs with high integrity, there were college sports was successful in generating new rev- warnings as early as the 1960s about systemic flaws enues, this was not viewed as particularly beneficial to in its Athletic Department. Perhaps most serious was the University’s image and reputation, at least by the the strong autonomy of the department, which used its faculty. The Athletic Department’s increasing autono- proclaimed financial independence to skirt the usual my largely eliminated any substantive role of the fac- regulations and policies of the university and operate ulty in governing intercollegiate athletics. While other according to its own rules and objectives, usually out of universities moved rapidly to introduce varsity pro- sight and out of mind of the university administration. grams for women, Michigan remained largely fossil- The “Michigan model,” in which the revenues from the ized in a prehistoric state of football-dominated men’s football program—due primarily to the gate receipts sports. In fact, in 1976, Michigan became a test case for generated by the gigantic Michigan Stadium—would gender discrimination in intercollegiate athletics under support all other athletic programs, would eventu- Title IX of the Higher Education Act. ally collapse, as the need to add additional programs Although in theory the athletic director reported di- (e.g., women’s sports), coupled with an unwillingness rectly to the president, Canham resented any higher au- to control expenditures, led to financial disaster by the thority, further bolstering the perception of the Athletic late 1990s. But perhaps a more serious threat to institu- Department as an independent entity. Canham was tional integrity was a shift in recruiting philosophy dur- also autocratic, both in his management of the Athletic ing the 1960s, away from recruiting students who were Department and in his efforts to keep both faculty and outstanding athletes to recruiting, instead, outstanding the University administration far away from influence athletes with marginal academic ability, athletes who or control. But financial and structural factors also led would “major in eligibility” so that they could compete. to this separation. The financial independence of the While this generated winning programs, particularly in Athletic Department, due almost entirely to Schem- football and basketball, it would eventually erode the bechler’s success in filling Michigan Stadium on foot- integrity of the department and lead to scandal in later ball weekends in the fall, led to a mindset within the years. Department that it was administratively separate from By the 1980s, it became clear that the days of the czar the rest of the University and therefore not subject to athletic director and the independent Athletic Depart- the rules and policies governing other units. Although ment were coming to an end. Intercollegiate athletics criticized from time to time over for the increasing in- activities are simply too visible and have too great an dependence and commercialism of Michigan athletics, impact on the university to be left entirely to the direc- Canham usually shrugged it off, pointing to Schem- tion of the athletics establishment, its values, and its bechler’s winning football teams and the department’s culture. Both Harold Shapiro and I faced the challenge financial health. of reining in the excesses of the Athletic Department The Athletic Department routinely ignored Uni- during the days of two particularly powerful figures, versity regulations and policies concerning personnel, athletic director Don Canham and football coach Bo financial accountability, and conflict of interest. And, Schembechler, both of whom were media celebrities most significantly, the vast gulf between the Athletic adept at building booster and press support for their Department and the University isolated student-ath- personal agendas. Despite considerable resistance, Sha- letes from academic life and coaches and staff from the piro successfully negotiated Canham’s retirement. rest of the University community. This unusual degree As provost, I reestablished control of admissions of independence led to scandal in the 1980s. The Uni- and academic eligibility for student athletes. But the versity experienced one of its most serious rules viola- high visibility of Michigan athletics and the myth of 239

The new AD: Bo Schembechler Jack Weidenbach: Second in Command under Bo (and also stilll football coach) and then Michigan’s Athletic Director its financial wealth and autonomy would continue to We began by arranging events that brought together haunt the university for years to come.This vast sepa- student-athletes and coaches in various academic ration between Michigan athletics and the rest of the settings—museums, concert halls, and such. We wanted University posed a real challenge. It was depriving to stress that student-athletes were students first, and student-athletes of many of the important experiences that coaches were, in reality, teachers. In the process of that should have been part of their education. So too, arranging and hosting these events, we began to realize it placed coaches in the awkward position of being that the isolation among sports programs was just as decoupled from the rest of the institution. Indeed, the serious as the chasm between the Athletic Department Athletic Department itself was highly compartmental- and the rest of the University. Students and coaches ized, with coaches and athletes in one program having enjoyed the opportunity to meet participants from little interaction with those in others. Both Anne and I other sports programs. We also began to build personal decided to take on as a personal challenge the task of relationships with coaches and Athletic Department “mainstreaming” Michigan athletics. This was probably staff, both through attending events and by meeting a more natural effort for us than many realized. We had with them individually. For example, even while I both been actively involved in sports. Anne had been a was Provost, we began to attend the annual Football cheerleader in high school—the only “sport” available Bust held to honor the football team following each for girls in our small country school. And I had played season, an event we would continue to attend regularly football at Yale. Furthermore, our daughter Kathy had throughout our presidency. been a varsity athlete in college, competing in the hep- Our efforts to strengthen relationships with student- tathalon and crew. Hence we had an appreciation for athletes, coaches, and staff of the Athletic Department both the importance of sports to the education of stu- led to some strong friendships, among them Bo dents and the importance of athletics to the University. Schembechler. In fact, Bo made it a point to show up It also seemed to us that there was an important sym- at my public interview for president. When the papers bolism associated with the Provost, the chief academic reported my selection by the Regents the next day, officer of the university, taking on this role; it made a whose picture should be on the front page but Bo’s, strong statement that athletics should be strongly re- with the quote: “He was my choice!” lated to the academic nature of the university. When I became president of the University in 1988, 240

it was clear that steps needed to be taken to address President for Business and Finance, Jack Weidenbach, many of these concerns. The high degree of public ex- was asked to serve as associate athletics director and posure of the University’s athletics programs was a handle the detailed management of the Department double-edged sword that both advanced and damaged while Bo was involved in coaching duties. Jack was an the institution. As a former college football player, I had outstanding choice. When Bo decided that he wanted to some understanding of both the challenges and oppor- step down from the athletics directorship after serving tunities of intercollegiate athletics, including the diffi- only a year, I faced the challenge of selecting and getting culty in balancing the values and cultures of academics regental approval for his successor. The haste of Bo’s and competitive athletics. Apart from my own personal decision proved a certain advantage, since there was no experience with college sports, changes at the confer- time to conduct a full search. I asked Jack Weidenbach ence and NCAA level required presidents to play a far to serve as athletics director, with the support of the more active role in intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA Board of Regents. had adopted a fundamental principle that institutional Both Jack and I believed that college athletics were control and accountability of athletics rested with the facing a period of significant change at the national presidents. and conference level. We believed a close relationship An additional complication arose from the incor- between the athletics director and the president was poration of the Big Ten Conference during the 1980s, critical if Michigan was to play a leadership role during with the university presidents serving as its board of this period. I also was convinced that Michigan would directors. This new corporate conference structure de- be at some risk if it had to endure the uncertainty and manded both policy and fiduciary oversight by the loss of momentum associated with another search for presidents, frequently in direct conflict with the athletic an athletics director. directors. It also demanded a great deal of time and ef- The Weidenbach era experienced years of both fort, since the operations of the Big Ten Conference are extraordinary success and great progress for Michigan more extensive than those of the professional athletic athletics. There is no other five-year period in the leagues. Many were the lonely, invisible battles I fought history of Michigan athletics programs with more for the university on such issues as sharing football conference championships, bowl wins, Final Four gate revenue, conference expansion, and gender equity. appearances, and All-Americans–both athletic and Some were won. Some were lost. But most battles were academic. In addition, the financial structure of unseen, unrecognized, and certainly unappreciated. Michigan athletics was stabilized, its physical plant While such an active presidential role clearly pro- was rebuilt, and the coaches and student-athletes were vided additional powers to restore and maintain the in- more clearly integrated into the broader life of the tegrity of Michigan athletics, it was sometimes not well campus community. understood or accepted by the old guard. Yet I was not Unfortunately, Jack was already close to retirement alone in my belief that the Athletic Department needed when he agreed to provide leadership for the Athletic to be brought back into the mainstream of University Department. Although there were several of the top life. athletic directors in the country available for Jack’s successor, the booster crowd got wind of the possibility 1990s that a “non-Michigan man” would be selected and began to apply pressure on the Regents to force the From the beginning it was clear that Bo Schembechler administration to look inside the Department for a would not only be an important factor, but that he also successor. must be considered as a serious candidate to succeed I finally concluded that it was simply too dangerous Don Canham. However, we realized it would be very to the University to continue the external search. difficult for any mortal to hold both the jobs ofhead Instead, with the support of the search committee, football coach and athletics director. A long-serving and I asked an insider, Joe Roberson, then Director of the well-liked stalwart of the University, Associate Vice Campaign for Michigan, to accept an appointment. 241

An interesting first year in the presidency: a Rose Bowl win over USC and a NCAA Championship in basketball. It was all downhill after that. 242

the University. We tried to ensure that student-athletes received the same educational and extracurricular op- portunities as other Michigan students. Coaches were provided with more encouragement for their roles as teachers and more security as staff members. We de- veloped clear policies in a number of areas including admissions, academic standing, substance abuse, and student behavior that were consistent with the rest of the University. At the same time, we took a series of steps to se- cure the financial integrity of Michigan athletics. The Athletic Department began to apply cost-containment methods to its operations, and a major fund-raising program was launched. The department developed more sophisticated methods for licensing. Finally, the University invested in major improvements in the ath- letics facilities, including rebuilding Michigan Stadium (returning to natural grass and repairing the stadium Joe Roberson, another Michigan stalwart, becomes Athletic Director. infrastructure) and new facilities for swimming, gym- nastics, ice hockey, tennis, track, and new fields for Joe’s name had been considered early in the search, but women’s soccer, field hockey, and softball. his role as the director of the University’s billion-dollar During this period the University finally began to fund-raising campaign was felt to be more important. take women’s athletics seriously by providing women Roberson’s appointment was a surprise to outsiders. with the same opportunities for varsity competition as He was, however, a former college athlete and men. Major investments were made in existing wom- professional baseball player. More important, he had en’s programs as well as in the addition of new pro- served as both dean and interim chancellor of the UM- grams (women’s soccer and women’s rowing). In fact, Flint campus. He was an individual of great integrity, despite decades of neglect, Michigan became one of the with a strong sense of academic values. Beyond his first major universities in the nation to make a public strong and wise leadership of the department, his commitment to achieving full gender equity in intercol- long experience with students and academic life as a legiate athletics by the late 1990s. faculty member and academic leader enabled him to There were also improvements in Michigan’s over- elevate the importance of students as students first and all competitiveness. While once Michigan had been athletes second, in priority, even in a highly competitive content to be successful primarily in a single sport, foot- program such as Michigan. Certainly Joe Roberson had ball, during the 1990s it began to compete at the nation- a better understanding of the mission and culture of an al level across its full array of 23 varsity programs. It academic institution than any athletic director of his era. began to rank each year among the top institutions na- Joe was also an excellent manager, and when he was tionwide for the national all-sports championship (the finally pushed out by my successor, he left the Athletics Sears Trophy). During the decade from 1988 to 1998, Department in outstanding financial condition with Michigan went to five Rose Bowls and won a national reserves of over $33 million. championship (1997) in football; three Final Fours and Working closely with the sequence of athletic direc- a national championship (1989) in men’s basketball; tors who succeeded Canham—Bo Schembechler, Jack and four hockey Final Fours and two NCAA champi- Weidenbach, and Joe Roberson—my administration onships in ice hockey (1996 and 1998). Michigan teams took a series of actions in the late 1980s and 1990s to won over 50 Big 10 championships during this period, better align athletics with the academic priorities of dominating the Big Ten in men’s and women’s swim- 243

Bollinger enjoyed the thrill of riding in the 1997 championship parade, but his attempt to place a “Halo” on Michigan Stadium fell flat. ming (including winning the NCAA championship in fans, coupled with the ruthless criticism of the sports men’s swimming), men’s and women’s cross-country, media, soon pushed both Michigan football and basket- women’s gymnastics, men’s and women’s track, and ball to the crisis point. women’s softball. Michigan athletes provided some of For a brief moment the sun shone on Michigan, with the most exciting moments in Michigan’s long sports a national championship in 1997 for Lloyd Carr’s foot- tradition, including two Heisman trophies (Desmond ball team with an undefeated season and a victory over Howard and Charles Woodson) and a number of Olym- Washington State in the Rose Bowl (although Nebraska pians. tied for the national champtionship with Michigan). The The heightened public visibility of Michigan athlet- new administration embraced the event, and President ics, particularly in the marquee sports of football and Bollinger perched royally in a horse-drawn carriage in men’s basketball, accompanied by the ever-escalating the Ann Arbor parade to celebrate the team,inoring, of expectations on the part of Michigan fans, put great course, that both the appointment of Carr and the de- pressure on both coaches and players alike. After five velopment of the team had been accomplished by Joe Big Ten championships in a row and the entrance of Roberson. Penn State into the conference, the football team ex- perienced a series of mediocre seasons (although “me- 2000s diocre” for Michigan meant winning only eight or nine games a season and appearing in only a second- It didn’t take long for Lee Bollinger to agree with tier holiday bowl). In basketball, although Steve Fish- the Regents to push out Joe Roberson as Athletic Di- er managed to continue to recruit top talent after the rector and hire Tom Goss, an executive with a soft Fab Five, his teams never were able to win the Big Ten drink company in California, who had been a former championship or return to the Final Four. Each misstep football player at Michigan. And Goss, in turn, moved by a student athlete or coach, the inevitable defeats that rapidly to fire Steve Fisher in the wake of the investi- characterize every leading program in off years or the gation of the relationship between Chris Webber and loss of a key recruit resulted in a torrent of adverse me- a Detroit gambler, Eddie Martin. Of course there was dia coverage. The sports media, which had been strong no evidence of any wrong doing on Webber’s part at Michigan boosters during the championship years, this stage, and there never has been any indication that were now viciously critical of these same programs and Fisher was as fault as coach. But the Regents were de- coaches as they struggled through occasionally medio- termined for change, and both Bollinger and Goss took cre seasons. The unrealistic expectations of Michigan their marching orders. 244

Brandon took another course by attempting to add a “wow” factor to football with fireworks night games, dining, and a gigantic video sign to advertise (and distract drivers by the stadium.

But things soon began to go downhill. Goss ap- yond levels affordable by most students, faculty, staff, pointed Fisher’s assistant basketball coach as his suc- townspeople, and long-time fans, transforming the cessor, who was clearly unqualified for the post, and stadium crowd into the high roller (or obsessed) fans the team rapidly collapsed. The financials of the Athlet- characteristic of a professional franchise, Bollinger, his ics Department were mismanaged and deficits began successor Mary Sue Coleman, and the Regents nodded to appear, a first for Michigan. In fact, Bollinger agreed their approval, and it was off to the races. The Michi- to put in $3 million from his “president’s fund” (what- gan Stadium project moved ahead, and ticket prices ever that was) to plug the dike (or to make Bo happy, soared…from $25 per game to $75 plus the seat tax…to as some rumored). But Goss was a goner after another the point today where the average ticket price, includ- push from the Regents. ing seat tax, is now $230 per game, and even student In searching for a successor, Bollinger tried to find tickets are $50 per game, both the highest in the nation. an insider to do the job but after a couple probes with- Martin’s experience as a real estate developer, builder, out success, he was approached Bill Martin, a local real and businessman were strongly in evidence. estate developer, who offered his services. Although But Martin’s inexperience with college sports soon Martin had chaired a special committee to assess the fi- began to show. He hired a new basketball coach, Tom- nancials of the Athletics Department after losses began my Amaker, who had all the right credentials, smart, to appear, his own experience was questionable. To be talented, and former player at Duke, but all the wrong sure, he was a member of the U.S. Olympic Commit- cultural characteristics to handle the Big Ten. Amaker tee, but his sport was yachting, not college sports. He was soon replaced by John Belein from West Virginia, was a business man and a real estate developer, and his and Amaker went onto success at Harvard. goal was to embark on a massive renovation of Michi- But football became the Achilles heel. Whether gan Stadium to install skyboxes and premium facilities pushed or pulled, Lloyd Carr stepped down after a (dining, entertaining) characteristic of professional ven- long and successful tenure as football coach, and Martin ues, financed by a dramatic increase in ticket prices and launched a search that ended up with Rich Rodriguez, premium payments (“seat license” fees for the privi- a successful coach at West Virginia, but a total misfit at leges to purchase season tickets in prime locations) that Michigan, where both his personal style (about as anti- would support both the stadium renovation and the academic as one could find) and his flawed approach to Department. Although this was highly controversial Big Ten football left the team in a shambles, with losing since it would essentially price Michigan football be- seasons and strong fan disapproval. By this time, Mar- 245

Athletic Director David Brandon A simple proposal for opening up Michigan Stadium once again to the “common man” tin’s “my way or the highway” business approach to gram that was generating the revenue, Brandon con- athletic leadership had worn thin, so he stepped down tinued to raise ticket prices and take on more debt with after ten years. projects such as the renovation of the Crisler Arena But if Martin was misaligned for athletic direc- (now renamed “Center”) to resemble more of a depart- tor, his successor, Dave Brandon, was even further re- ment store with numerous shops along the entrances moved, coming to the post from a career in advertis- and concourses and a proposed $300 million invest- ing and serving as a former Regent of the University. ment in new facilities for the non-revenue sports. Ad- Brandon did have some experience with Michigan ath- vertising became the name of the game, with gigantic letics. He was walk-on quarterback for Schembechler video displays not only inside Michigan Stadium but in the 1980s, although he only made it into one game. also outside to lure (and, more likely, district) drivers Bo helped him get a job afterward with a large Detroit as they approached the stadium. As the financial data advertising company, and when Domino’s Pizza was indicates, the expenditures rose by over 50% during the acquired by Bain Capital, they named him CEO where Brandon years, mostly to fuel the rapid expansion of his marketing and advertising skills were valued. staffing (particularly in the marketing area) and debt Since Brandon had been instrumental in hiring service. Perhaps it is no surprise that student support Mary Sue Coleman when he was a Regent, nobody was increased by only 10% during this period, clearly re- particularly surprised when he was hired as Athletic flecting the new priorities. Director. After all, he left Domino’s with over $200 mil- Faculty influence was also essentially eliminated, lion in stock, and he had a strong passion for Michigan since as chair of the faculty Advisory Board on Intercol- athletics. Unfortunately his background was in market- legiate Athletics, Brandon was able to schedule meet- ing, with no experience in managing college sports, so ings of limited consequence. Furthermore, since few that is the tact that he took, pushing out over 100 long- faculty members could afford the new ticket prices, standing employees and replacing them with 200 new they rapidly became disengaged with Michigan athlet- staff who were directed to “build the brand” of Mich- ics, treating it largely with benign neglect. igan athletics and add the “Wow” factor to market it Despite growing criticism from members of the Uni- to the world. He moved quickly to fire Rodriguez, but versity and Ann Arbor community who were priced strangely replaced him with an obscure coach, Brady out of Michigan football, basketball, and hockey events, Hoke, from San Diego State, who continued the malaise Brandon was determined to continue his focus on el- in the football program. evating both the Michigan brand and its pricing, while Ignoring the poor performance of the football pro- aggressively pushing private fund raising in competi- 246

While the expenditures of the Athletics Department have almost doubled over the past seven year (driven tickets and seat taxes), most of this revenue has gone to salaries and not students. 247

The Michigan Marching Band apparently understood where Michigan football was headed! tion with the rest of the University. Michigan Athletics Over the past 20 years, Michigan has had three dif- became increasingly a commercial entertainment com- ferent athletic directors, characterized by zero experi- pany marketing to primarily to the wealthy and effec- ence with college sports. And over that period both the tively severed from the University. quality and the character of Michigan athletics have Yet this strategy exploded in 2014, when a tragic clearly deteriorated. Needless to say, the “leaders and incident occurred when the football coaches allowed best” have become anything but... clearly injured quarterback to remain in a game with Of course, onr could always blame this on the presi- a concussion. The intense national exposure to this in- dents, as many do for other areas of institutional perfor- cident, shown live on a national television broadcast mance. But here it is important to realize that building a of the game, together with the growing frustration competitive athletics program requires many years, so about Brandon’s effort to sever the relationships with that its performance under one president can usually the University and the community through excessive be attributed to the era of one’s predecessor. For exam- ticket pricing and restrictive policies, finally exploded ple, my experience in having both a Rose Bowl cham- into calls for his firing. After performing extensive due pion and NCAA basketball champion my first year, diligence through discussions with many different per- benefited enormously from the development of these spectives, the University’s new president, Mark Schlis- programs during Harold Shapiro’s era. (Although in sel, concluded that Brandon’s reign must come to an this case, some credit might be accepted for the effort end, and he negotiated his “resignation” (at a cost of $3 that Anne and I invested, while serving as provost, in million due to the excessive contract provided Brandon building stronger relationships with both coaches and by Coleman early in his tenure). student-athletes, perhaps symbolized best by Coach Bo 248

Schembechler’s presence at my selection as president to ize there are only three reasons why a university would announce, “He was my choice!”.) In a similar sense, the want to conduct big-time college sports: i) because it national championship won by the football program benefits the student-athletes; ii) because it benefits the during Lee Bollinger’s first year as president was cer- university (reputation, community, revenue; and iii) be- tainly not to his administration, but rather to the leader- cause it benefits the larger community. It is my belief ship of AD Joe Roberson, Coach Lloyd Carr, and many that big-time college football and basketball, as current- others during my years. ly conducted, fail to meet any of these criteria. Of course, eventually the credit or blame for the suc- Third, and most significantly, it is my growing con- cess or failure of an athletics program over many years viction that big-time college sports do far more damage must rest with the president during those years, as evi- to the university, to its students and faculty, its leader- denced by the unfortunate decline of Michigan athletics ship, its reputation and credibility, that most realize--or during the first decade of the 21st century. at least are willing to admit. The evidence seems over- whelming: Lessons Learned • Far too many of our athletics programs exploit It is appropriate to conclude this chapter with some young people, recruiting them with the promise very personal and candid comments about the future of of a college education—or a lucrative professional college sports, at least at the level of the University of career—only to have the majority of Division 1-A Michigan. After four decades as a college athlete, a fac- football and basketball players achieve neither. ulty member, provost and president of the University • Scandals in intercollegiate athletics have damaged of Michigan, and member and chair of the Presidents’ the reputations of many of our colleges and univer- Council of the Big Ten Conference, I have arrived at sities. several conclusions: • Big time college football and basketball have put First, while most of intercollegiate athletics are both inappropriate pressure on university governance, valuable and appropriate activities for our universities, as boosters, politicians, and the media attempt to big-time college football and basketball stand apart, influence governing boards and university leader- since they have clearly become commercial entertain- ship. ment businesses. Today they have little if any relevance • The impact of intercollegiate athletics on university to the academic mission of the university. Furthermore, culture and values has been damaging, with inap- they are based on a culture, a set of values that, while propriate behavior of both athletes and coaches, all perhaps appropriate for show business, are viewed as too frequently tolerated and excused. highly corrupt by the academy and deemed corrosive • So too, the commercial culture of the entertainment to our academic mission. industry that characterizes college football and bas- Second, while I believe that one can make a case for ketball is not only orthogonal to academic values, relevance of college sports to our educational mission but it is corrosive and corruptive to the academic to the extent that they provide a participatory activity enterprise for our students, I can find no compelling reason why American universities should conduct intercollegiate Some Myths and Realities of College Sports athletics programs at the current highly commercial- ized, professionalized level of big-time college foot- Myth 1: Intercollegiate athletics are self-supporting. ball and basketball simply for the entertainment of the Reality: No college programs in America today American public, the financial benefit of coaches, ath- cover all their expenses (even those who claim to such letic directors, conference commissioners, and NCAA USC, U Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, and even Notre executives, and the profit of television networks, spon- Dame). Athletic directors use flakey accounting meth- sors, and sports apparel manufacturers. ods that do not include full costs of capital expendi- If you think about it for a moment, you will real- tures, hidden subsidies such as instate tuition for out- 249

The disparity between expenditures per student on athletics (upper curve) and academics (lower curves) continues to diverge, particularly in the leading confences and institutions. of-state athletes, indirect costs born by the institution, could not care less about college sports! They view it fund-raising that competes with academic units, and, of largely as a distraction from the primary mission of the course, the strange legislation that inserted a tax loop- University (except for Steve Ross, of course, who gave hole that treats skybox rent and seat taxes as charitable $100 million to the Athletics Department in 2013 to help “education” deductions. The NCAA estimates that build a “Walk of Champions”, whatever that is). in 2009 the total costs for intercollegiate athletics was $10.5 billion, while the total revenue was $5.6 billion Myth 3: All athletic facilities are self-financed. (including ticket sales, television broadcasting, licens- Reality: Actually most athletic facilities require ei- ing, etc.). In reality the only people who make money ther institutional or public subsidy. But even those that –and big-time money, at that– from big time athletics are debt financed must pledge student tuition revenue are the coaches, athletic directors, NCAA brass, and the for borrowing equity, not anticipated gate receipts or networks. But certainly not the “student athletes” and television revenue. They also depend on questionable certainly not their host institutions. tax practices counting fees such as skybox leases and In 2012 the media budget deficits for NCAA Divi- seat taxes as 80% “charitable” deductions by the IRS sion 1 programs averaged $9 million per year. From despite the fact that they are quid pro quo required pay- 2005 to 2009 athletics departments increased spending ments for benefits such as premium seating. If these tax on student athletes by 50%, to $91,050 per athlete, while loopholes disappear, many of the big stadium projects the increase for normal students was 20% to $13,470 per will collapse like a house of cards. student. Myth 4: The power of the NCAA will protect the status Myth 2: Intercollegiate athletics are important for fund quo. raising. Reality: Today the NCAA is in serious trouble and Reality: Donors who give because of winning teams fighting for its survival. Its tax status is dependent upon give to wining programs, not to academic activities. But rulings long ago that its primary purpose is educational. it gets even worse, since the tax-benefited “premium” Yet grants-in-aid based on athletic performance could payments for skyboxes and preferred seating generally be ruled as “pay for play” and hence require employ- come out of gifts that would otherwise have gone to ment rights for athletes (including unionization). The academic purposes. At Michigan, our largest donors O’Bannon case could require payment to players for 250

the use of their images for commercial purposes. Litiga- ing in eligibility”, enrolling in cupcake majors (sports tion associated with brain injuries or long-term health management, communications, general studies). The impact could cripple both the NCAA and universities. attrition rates are tragic, with 6-year graduate rates: less Finally, the compensation of coaches ($5 M and up), than 50% for football; 40% for basketball. Even those athletic directors ($1 M and up), and athletic staff (now who graduate frequently have meaningless degrees several times that of faculty) is now so extreme that it (e.g., recreational sports, golf-course management). raises the threat of federal action. What to do? The Traditional Approach Myth 5: Intercollegiate athletics is important for school spirit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (although that hap- Reality: Sure, student applications do go up after a pens to be my background) to see what has to be done major championship. But the students attracted to an to re-establish the primacy of educational over com- institution are not necessarily those most concerned mercial values in college sports: about academic achievement. Instead, they come “pay- ing for the party”...the title of a recent book on college Freshman Ineligibility: All freshmen in all sports life. Besides, how important is athletics to the school should be ineligible for varsity competition. The first spirit of institutions like Harvard, Yale…and Caltech? year should be a time for students to adjust intellectu- And how important is athletics to Penn State these ally and emotionally to the hectic pace of college life. days? Financial Aid: Eliminate the “athletic scholarship” or “grant-in-aid” and replace it with need-based finan- Myth 6: But we do pay student athletes! We give them cial aid. Note this would not only substantially reduce valuable scholarships! the costs of college sports, but it would also eliminate Reality: A quote from a recent book on college sports the legal risks of continuing what has become, in effect, by Taylor Branch, the great historian of civil rights in a “pay for play” system. America, puts this in an interesting context. Mainstream Coaches: Throttle back the salaries of “‘Scholarship athletes are already paid,’ declared the coaches, athletic directors, and other athletic depart- Knight Commission members, “in the most meaningful ment staff to levels comparable to faculty and other way possible: with a free education.’ This evasion by university staff. Subject coaches to the same conflict prominent educators severed my last reluctant, emo- of interest policies that govern other faculty and staff tional tie with imposed amateurism. I found it worse (e.g., eliminating shoe contracts, prohibiting the use of than self-serving. It echoes masters who once claimed the university’s name and reputation for personal gain, that heavenly salvation would outweigh earthly injus- etc.) tice to slaves.” Mainstream the Administration of Intercollegiate Athletics: Intercollegiate athletics is a student extracur- Myth 7: But we are preparing athletes for professional ricular activity and, as such, should report to the vice careers. president for student affairs. Academic matters such as Reality: A recent Michigan survey indicates that student eligibility, counseling, and academic support most student athletes realize their odds of making the should be the responsibility of the university’s chief pros are very remote. Instead they view their college academic officer (e.g., the provost). Financial matters experience as an opportunity to enter careers very simi- should be under the control of the university’s chief lar to other students in fields such as business, law, and financial officer. Medical issues should be under the medicine. But after a few weeks on campus, many of control of staff from the university medical center or the most vigorously recruited student athletes realize student health service. they are woefully academically unprepared and sad- Financial Support: We should adopt the principle dled with 50-60 hour/week “jobs” and lives controlled that if intercollegiate athletics are of value to students, by coaches. Hence they are forced to shift to “major- they should be subsidized by the General and Educa- 251 tion budget of the university. To this end, we might con- Of course, the first arguments launched against such sider putting athletics department salary lines (coaches reform proposals always have to do with money. Col- and staff) on the academic budget and under the con- lege football and basketball are portrayed as the geese trol of the provost. We could then use a counter flow that lay the golden eggs for higher education. Howev- of athletic department revenue into the General and er I believe these arguments, long accepted but rarely Education budget to minimize the net subsidy of col- challenged, are flawed. Essentially all intercollegiate lege sports. athletic programs are subsidized, to some degree, by Faculty control: We need to restructure faculty ath- the academic programs of the university (when all costs letics boards so that they are no longer under control are included, such as amortization of facilities and ad- of athletic directors but instead represent true faculty ministrative overhead.) Furthermore, in the scheme of participation. It is important to keep “jock” faculty off things, the budgets of these programs are quite modest these boards and to give priority to those faculty with relative to other institutional activities (e.g., at Michi- significant experience in undergraduate education. It gan, the $100 M/y budget of our athletic department is also important for faculty boards to understand and is only about 2% of our total budget, and, more to the accept their responsibilities for seeing that academic point, less than the amount of state support we have priorities dominate competitive and commercial goals, lost over the past three years!). while student welfare and institutional integrity are The current culture of college sports is driven by the priorities. belief that the team that spends the most wins the most. Rigorous Independent Audits and Compliance Not surprisingly, therefore, the more revenue athletic Functions: Here we need a system for independent au- programs generate, the more they spend. Since most diting of not simply compliance with NCAA and con- of the expenditures are in areas such as grants-in-aid, ference rules, but as well financial matters, student aca- coaches and staff salaries, promotional activities, and demic standing, progress toward degrees, and medical facilities, many of the proposals in the previous section matters. would dramatically reduce these costs. For example, Limits on Schedules and Student Participation: We replacing the current system of grants-in-aid by need- should confine all competitive schedules to a single based financial aid would reduce these costs by at least academic term (e.g., football in fall, basketball, hock- a factor of two. Throttling back the extravagant level ey in winter, etc.). Competitive schedules should be of celebrity coaches salaries (and applying conflict of shortened to more reasonable levels (e.g., football back interest to eliminate excessive external income and to 10 games, basketball to 20 games, etc.). We need to perks) would do likewise. Demanding university con- constrain competitive and travel schedules to be com- trol of all auxiliary activities such as broadcasting and patible with academic demands (e.g., no weekday licensing so that revenue flows to the institution and competition). Student participation in mandatory, non- not to the coaches would also help. And reducing the competitive athletics activities during off-season should expenditures required to mount big-time commercial be severely limited (including eliminating spring foot- entertainment events would also reduce costs, thereby ball practice, summer conditioning requirements, etc.). compensating for lost broadcasting revenue. Throttle Back Commercialization: It is time to for- get about a “Final Four” Division 1-A football nation- Treating Athletics Like the Rest of the University al championship and drastically reduce the number of post-season bowls. Perhaps we should return the More generally, the first step in reconnecting college NCAA Basketball Tournament to a two-week, confer- sports to the academic enterprise is to stop treating our ence champion only event. Furthermore, we need to athletic departments, coaches, and student-athletes as stop this nonsense of negotiating every broadcasting special members of the university community, subject contract as if dollars were the only objective and chase to different rules and procedures, policies and practices the sports press out of the locker rooms and lives of our than the rest of university. The key to reform is to main- students. stream our athletics programs and their participants 252

back into the university in three key areas: financial by university financial and personnel units. All person- management, personnel policies, and educational prac- nel searches, including those for coaches, should com- tices. ply fully with the policies and practices characterizing Financial management: Athletics departments other staff (e.g., equal opportunity) should be subject to the same financial controls, poli- Who Should Take the Lead in Reform cies, and procedures as other university units. Their financial operations should report directly to the chief Several years ago, I received an invitation from Wil- financial officer of the university and be subject to rig- liam Friday, former president of the University of North orous internal audit requirements and full public dis- Carolina, to testify before the Knight Commission on closure as an independent (rather than consolidated) Intercollegiate Athletics. My book on college sports had financial unit. All external financial arrangements, just appeared, and they were interested in my views on including those with athletic organizations (e.g., con- this complex subject. After stating my concerns, much ferences and the NCAA), commercial concerns (e.g., as I have earlier in this chapter, I went on to suggest a licensing, broadcasting, endorsements), and founda- possible approach to reform that began with the pre- tion/booster organizations should be under strict uni- mier academic organization, the Association of Ameri- versity controls. In that regard, I would even suggest can Universities (AAU). If these institutions were to that we take the Sarbanes-Oxley approach, designed to adopt a series of reforms–a disarmament treaty, if you eliminate abuses in the financial operations of publicly- will– for their members, much of the rest of the higher held corporations, by requiring the Athletic Director, education enterprise would soon follow. It is my belief President, and chair of the Governing Board to sign that such an effort by the AAU would propagate rather annual financial statements and hold them legally ac- rapidly throughout other organizations such as the Na- countable should these later be found to be fraudulent. tional Association of State Universities and Land Grant Possible Cost Reductions: There are many oppor- Colleges and even the American Council on Education. tunities for significant cost reductions. For example, I concluded my testimony by stressing the point replacing the current system of grants-in-aid by need- that as higher education entered an era of great chal- based financial aid would reduce these costs by at least lenge and change, it was essential that we re-examine a factor of two. Throttling back the extravagant level each and every one of our activities for their relevance of celebrity coaches salaries (and applying conflict of and compatibility with our fundamental academic mis- interest to eliminate excessive external income and sions of teaching, learning, and serving society. From perks) would do likewise. Demanding university con- this perspective, it was my belief there was little justi- trol of all auxiliary activities such as broadcasting and fication for the American university to mount and sus- licensing so that revenue flows to the institution and tain big-time football and basketball programs at their not to the coaches would also help. And reducing the current commercial and professional level simply to expenditures required to mount big-time commercial satisfy the public desire for entertainment and pursue entertainment events would also reduce costs, thereby the commercial goals of the marketplace. The damage compensating for lost broadcasting revenue. to our academic values and integrity was simply too Personnel: All athletics department staff (including great. If we were to retain intercollegiate athletics as an coaches) should be subject to the same conflict-of-inter- appropriate university activity, it was essential to de- est policies that apply to other university staff and fac- couple our programs from the entertainment industry ulty. For example, coaches should no longer be allowed and reconnect them with the educational mission of our to exploit the reputation of the university for personal institutions. gain through endorsements or special arrangements After I had finished my remarks, the co-chair of the with commercial vendors (e.g., sports apparel compa- commission, Father Theodore Hesburg, former presi- nies, broadcasting, automobile dealers). Employment dent of Notre Dame, was first to respond. He thanked agreements for coaches should conform to those char- me (after offering a prayer: “May God have mercy on acterizing other staff and should be subject to review your soul!”) for not only reinforcing many of the Com- 253 mission concerns, but, in effect, providing a first draft who have the capacity (and all too frequently the incli- of the Commission’s report! Of course, others on the nation) to fire presidents who rock the university boat Commission challenged some of my more outspoken too strenuously. It should be clear that few contempo- conclusions and recommendations. But in the end, rary university presidents have the capacity, the will, or my conclusions seemed to stand, as evidenced by the the appetite to lead a true reform movement in college strong statement in the final report of the Commission: sports. Well, what about the faculty? Of course, in the end, “After digesting the extensive testimony offered it is the governing faculty that is responsible for its aca- over some six months, the Commission is forced to demic integrity of a university. Faculty members have reiterate its earlier conclusion that at their worst, big- been given the ultimate protection, tenure, to enable time college athletics appear to have lost their bearings. them to confront the forces of darkness that would sav- Athletics continue to threaten to overwhelm the uni- age academic values. The serious nature of the threats versities in whose name they were established. Indeed, posed to the university and its educational values by we must report that the threat has grown rather than the commercialization and corruption of big-time col- diminished. Higher education must draw together all lege sports has been firmly established in recent years. of its strengths and assets to reassert the primary of It is now time to challenge the faculties of our universi- the educational mission of the academy. The message ties, through their elected bodies such as faculty sen- that all parts of the higher education community must ates, to step up to their responsibility to defend the proclaim is emphatic: Together, we created today’s dis- academic integrity of their institutions, by demanding graceful environment. Only by acting together can we substantive reform of intercollegiate athletics. clean it up.” To their credit, several faculty groups have re- A Call to Action: Reconnecting College Sports sponded well to this challenge and stepped forward and Higher Education to propose a set of principles for the athletic programs The Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics conducted by their institutions. Beginning first in the June, 2001 Pac Ten Conference universities, then propagating to the Big Ten and Atlantic Coast Conferences, and most Yet, in retrospect, I now believe that while both my recently considered and adopted by the American As- testimony and the Knight Commission report urgent- sociation of University Professors, such principles pro- ly portrayed the threat to American higher education vide a firm foundation for true reform in college sports. posed by the ever-increasing commercialization and Yet the influence of the faculty has been pushed corruption of big-time college sports, neither proposed out of intercollegiate athletics by eliminating oversight an effective method to deal with the problem. In fact, a boards, as athletic departments have taken over control major reason why the various efforts to reform college of academic counseling (and at some institutions, even sports over the past several decades have failed is that admission and academic standing), and as even faculty we continue to bet on the wrong horse. We continue participation as spectators has eroded due to premium propose that the university presidents take the lead in pricing of tickets, little wonder that most faculty mem- the reform of college sports, whether through academic bers treat the Athletics Department with benign neglect organizations such as the AAU and ACE (my proposal) (at least until its missteps severely damage the integrity or the NCAA (the Knight Commission). And very lit- of their institution. tle happens, and the mad rush toward more and more What about trustees? The next obvious step in this commercialism and corruption continues. process is for the faculties to challenge the trustees of Perhaps this is not so surprising. After all, univer- our universities, who in the end must be held account- sity presidents are usually trapped between a rock and able for the integrity of their institutions. To be sure, a hard place: between a public demanding high qual- there will always be some trustees who are more be- ity entertainment from the commercial college sports holding to the football coach than to academic values. industry they are paying for, and governing boards But most university trustees are dedicated volunteers 254

with deep commitments to their institutions and to the In summary, who will protect the interests of the educational mission of the university. Furthermore, student athletes? while some governing boards may inhibit the efforts of university presidents willing to challenge the sports Not the coaches or ADs or NCAA. They clearly have establishment, few governing boards can withstand a conflicts of interests. concerted effort by their faculty to hold them account- What about faculty? They have been pushed to the able for the integrity of their institution. In this spirit, side. several faculty groups have already begun this phase What about university leaders like presidents or of the process by launching a dialogue with university trustees? They clearly have abdicated all responsibil- trustees through the Association of Governing Boards. ity!!! Ironically, it could well be that the long American What about the government? They got us into this tradition of shared university governance, involving trouble!!! public oversight and trusteeship by governing boards What about…lawyers? Perhaps that is the only pro- of lay citizens, elected faculty governance, and expe- tection left!!! rienced but generally short-term and usually amateur administrative leadership, will pose the ultimate chal- There are still several possibilities on the horizon lenge to big time college sports. that could become “planet killers” for college sports as After all, even if university presidents are reluc- we know them today: tant to challenge the status quo, the faculty has been The federal government could finally step up to its provided with the both the responsibility and the sta- responsibility to treat big-time athletics like other busi- tus (e.g., tenure) to protect the academic values of the ness enterprises, subjecting it to more reasonable treat- university and the integrity of its education programs. ment with respect to tax policy, employee treatment Furthermore, as trustees understand and accept their (meaning student-athletes), monopoly and cartel re- stewardship for welfare of their institutions, they will strictions, and possibly even salary constraints. recognize that their clear financial, legal, and public ac- The O’Bannon case has demonstrated that litigation countability compels them to listen and respond to the may become a formidable force for changing college challenge of academic integrity from their faculties. sports as we know it today. There are early signs that What about a rising tide of public frustration? To be student-athletes may be given rights that protect them sure, many of those in charge of college athletics are un- against exploitation by coaches and athletic depart- able (or unwilling) to understand the minefields that ments, and others for personal gain. lie in the path of their plans. For example, the Big Ten But the most serious threat on the horizon is the in- leadership (conference commissioner and presidents) creasing evidence of the damage that intensifying vio- has largely destroyed the conference, adding new insti- lent sports such as football, basketball, and hockey to tutions that fail to meet the tests of geographical loca- professional levels do to the health of young athletes. In tion, athletic competitiveness, or academic quality. As recent years, there is growing medical evidence about fans begin to realize that long-standing rivalries among the long-term impact of concussions and other trauma academic peers (e.g., Michigan vs. Wisconsin) will on longer-term illness such as dementia and Alzheim- largely disappear to satisfy the Big Ten Network, they ers. These concerns are broadening out to explore the could well abandon any loyalty to either teams or insti- epidemiology of longer health impact including life ex- tutions. Of course, they could be replaced by new fans pectancy (now found to be as low as 57 for NFL play- with interests more akin to professional sports such as ers). Although most attention has been focused on the automobile racing or boxing. After all, sports remain health implications of competition at the high school the “opiate of the masses”. and professional level, it is only a matter of time be- fore college sports falls under the microscope. Beyond Possible “Planet Killers” for College Sports the concerns about the impact of violent sports on the health of student athletes, these studies are likely to 255 open up a Pandora’s Box of litigation on issues such as institutional liability and requirements for the support of long-term health care that could financially cripple many institutions that insist on continuing to compete at the current level of intensity. In fact, the threat of liti- gation as class action suits could even eliminate violent sports such as football and hockey as we know them today at all but the professional levels.

A Final Observation

Today I stand among a growing number of past and current university leaders who believe that today high- er education has entered an era of great challenge and change. Powerful social, economic, and technological forces are likely to change the university in very pro- found ways in the decades ahead. As our institutions enter this period of transformation, it is essential that we re-examine each and every one of our activities for their relevance and compatibility with our fundamen- tal academic missions of teaching, research, and serv- ing society. If we are to retain intercollegiate athletics as appro- priate university activities, it is essential we insist upon the primacy of academic over commercial values by de- coupling our athletic programs from the entertainment industry and reconnecting them with the educational mission of our institutions. The American university is simply too important to the future of this nation to be threatened by the ever increasing commercialization, professionalization, and corruption of college sports. Is this a hopeless quest for change? Here I can only recall a quote from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (Feb- ruary 14, 1776) that applies to this issue:

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in these pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them gen- eral favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more con- verts than reason.”

Oh, yes...there is one more observation...